Roj Bash Kurdistan

I have found this site just have a look here a text of it

Peace and stability depends on democracy, we are for becoming democratized” Killed thousands of people by Ocalan's orders

“I am not seperatist, I have departed from the historical mistake I made at those times” Mentioned some of Turkey's lands as "Kurdistan". Diyarbakir, a city in Turkey is claimed the capital of so-called Kurdistan by the name of Amed.

“I am Turk. I love Turkey. I am ready for serving this country

http://www.turkses.com/issues/pkk/contradictions.htm

Lol what a surprise ! He repeats the same thing since his own arrest. But not by cowardness ... not at all... He has his own plans...

Claiming independant kurdistan in Turkey was an "historical mistake"

So I suppose Kurds still believing in it are traitors?

Kurds must only believe in Apo. Or they are traitors.

Actually - APO is a traitor... Kurds who follow him aren't traitors - they are IGNORANT...

YOU are a traitor

Of course he is : He thinks . Every Kurd who thinks by himself is a TRAITOR.

I must however add that being pro APO is different from being pro PKK...

Apo has lost the controll he had - and now if a new leader arose he could effectively lead the PKK out of the image that "PKK is marxist and terrorist" - A new leader could draw back the forces to South Kurdistan - where they could blend in with the Pêshmerge - then the next step would be supporting Leyla Zana's political party - 1000000 % so that her back is covered no matter what...

Futher - if Turkey doesn't stop with the State Terror - we would establish and Al-Qaeeda - in South Kurdistan - launching offensives on military bases from South Kurdistan...

For us to do such a thing - we would have to get stronger - and we would need stronger weapons - to show of - because currently South Kurdistan has weak weapons - which won't do much good - we need weapons that will make Turkey think twice before attacking...

The point is - that South Kurdistan would not officially support the military operations which are launched from it - it would condemn them - and "demand a political solution" - but all this would only happen IF Leyla Zana's political party was barred/failed or somehow wasn't able to do it's part in the political prosess...

But first of all - we should think along political lines - North Kurdistan is occupied by what America called "an example of democracy for the Middle East"... So we would be smart to USE that thinking - asking for DEMOCRACY... And Federalism in North Kurdistan...

The questions asked in that turkish propaganda site are so stupid...

1. Is the demand for cultural rights, which are claimed not to exist, worth of murdering more than 30.000 people ?

Dont they have the brains to figure out that this 30.000 figure is a total of deads committed by both parties.

I said that once to a turkish guy

"So PKK killed 30000 is that right?"

"Yes"

"So turkish army, with 500 000 men, tanks, planes, helicopters, was not able to kill one single PKK??? Why are they so important in turkey if they can't protect the country"

Something to think about...

Is he really saying anything different than what Talabani has been preaching the past few years?

talabani is the president of iraq, apo is the president of shit, big difference.

Maybe you can talk with more respect.

heval, you are right about the things talabanî has been saying, yet very few complain about talabanî.

it is also interesting to note that ocalan says things very similar to what ibrahim tatlises says. . . but not with the same reaction.

Hi Cheryl,

I've been wanting to reply to your posts for some time. I guess I've been busy, but overall I generally agree with you so there's little for me to add. But, still, I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my question about the armed struggle.

Now I have started to wonder about a related point and that is - why is Ocalan so hated by 'outsiders' - and by this i mean Western governments, leaders, etc? The reasons that are given generally:

- he's a ruthless terrorist
- he's authoritarian
- he is responsible for the death of other Kurds and dissenters
- any leader of a subversive, armed movement is seen as an enemy of the leaders of sovereign states

But these factors would only hold water if we are to accept the image of the PKK as relentlessly propagated by the Turkish state. As I've tried to explain elsewhere, I don't think the PKK nor Ocalan can be properly classified as 'terrorist'. As far as I'm concerned, only ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can push someone to that conclusion.

He is authoritarian, but so are Barzani, Talabani and nearly every other leader in the Middle East whom the West ostensibly has great relations with.

I won't even bother making an explanation about the killing of dissenters (although there's many legitimate points to be made) because it would rest on the assumption that the West cares that Kurds are being killed...they don't...

On the last point, I think it is legitimate but many exceptions are made...

However, if you ask PKK supporters, they would likely give different answers as to why Ocalan has earned the enmity of the West, such as:
- he's an ideologue who does not support the status quo and cannot be 'manipulated' by the interests of foreign powers (he does not forsake the interests of Kurds)
- he represents a way of life that is antithetical to the materialistic way of life epitomized in Western society - for example... his search for 'natural man' stripped of his ties to society and more in tune with humanity simpliciter
- in a way, he is seen as an "alternative" to the very essence of the kind of superficial lifestyle (bound to crude economics and self-interest) exemplified in the West
- all these combined make him the kind of leader one wishes to avoid in supporting...

There is also the factor which is downplayed by both sides and really it boils down to dumb (bad) luck:
- Ocalan's main struggle is against Turkey and Turkey is a friendly ally, therefore, her enemy is the West's de facto enemy
- so we must ask, had Ocalan been the leader of the PKK in Southern Kurdistan, would the West have viewed him and the PKK differently? The answer seems obvious to a certain extent.

One could make the challenge that Ocalan would not have behaved as the KDP and PUK's leadership and tensions would have developed early on.

(But, we saw Ocalan willing to compromise in Turkish captivity so I don't know whether this challenge would hold. Would he have behaved any differently with American interlocuters?)

These are just my initial thoughts. What do you think? What is it about him and the PKK that radically bothers the West? And are there other factors that are worth mentioning?

(I have purposefully avoided the question of why Kurds might be bothered by him to make the question simpler...)

Nistiman[/i]